The Instigator
DebateStorm
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Grape
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Resolved: Religion Benefits Modern Society

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,399 times Debate No: 10141
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

DebateStorm

Pro

rel-i-gion: noun:

A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Religion benefits modern society, as it creates and enforces moral laws which all in said religion are forced to follow.
Grape

Con

Introduction: Agreed with my opponent's definition of religion. To clarify the resolution, my opponent has asserted that religion benefits modern society. In order to win this debate, I will either have to show that religion harms modern society or simply that it does not benefit it.

My opponent's argument thus far consisted of the following sentence:

"Religion benefits modern society, as it creates and enforces moral laws which all in said religion are forced to follow."

This makes the following assertions:
1. Religion creates moral laws
2. Religion enforces moral laws
3. All those in a religion or forced to follow the moral laws laid down by said religion

My argument for this round will consist of showing that each of those contentions is false.

Contentions:

1. Based on my opponent's definition, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe creates moral laws. Why would such a belief create moral laws? It does not logically follow that a religion would cause moral laws to come into existence spontaneously. If it were somehow true, than what would happen when two religions proposed contradictory moral laws?

A religion may propose an idea about morality, but these ideas are not universally accepted and they often directly contradict moral ideas that are derived from logic and reasoning. Simply because religion proposes moral ideas does not mean that it is beneficial to modern society. In order for this alleged moral contribution to be relevant, my opponent would have to show that the moral ideas proposed by religions are logical and beneficial. That fact that many religions would directly contradict each other would also have to be reconciled.

2. In modern society, religions do not have the power to enforce their moral laws. I really don't see how this could be contended. Though people may attempt to make their religious ideas into law, religions do not directly possess this power and in any case it is unconstitutional in the United States.

3. No one in a religion is forced to follow its laws in modern society. Again, this is hardly a contentious issue. Murder is not allowed in Christianity but Christians commit murder. The religion does not force its followers to obey moral laws.

Conclusion:

I could go into a number of arguments that morally does not come from religion and I could provide many examples of the negative influences of religion. However, the argument that my opponent has provided does not make this necessary. My opponent's only argument has been that religion creates and enforces moral laws, but it clearly does not do either of these things.
Debate Round No. 1
DebateStorm

Pro

DebateStorm forfeited this round.
Grape

Con

My opponent has forfeited the round. Since silence is consent, my opponent has conceded all of my arguments are true unless he offers a rebuttal in the next round. All arguments are extended.
Debate Round No. 2
DebateStorm

Pro

DebateStorm forfeited this round.
Grape

Con

My opponent has forfieted again. The only thing he has offered in the debate is the definition of the word "religion" and a one sentence argument that is mainly a restatement of the resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro made one assertion, but gave no arguments.

To use the Old Testament for the Con side, it is necessary to show that "modern religion" teaches and encourages Old Testament morality. I don't think that's true. It's either rationalized away or ignored.
Posted by Grape 7 years ago
Grape
It may very well be true that the Bible contradicts itself, but it plainly does state "Thou shall not murder" at one point. The fact that it may commend atrocities elsewhere is not relevant to the point I am making.

Informal Logic:

1. The Bible says "Though shalt not murder"
2. If Christians always do what the Bible says, they do not murder
3. Christians murder
.: Therefore, Christians do not always do what the Bible says
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
And my point is that religion doesn't forbid murder, it commands it.
Posted by Grape 7 years ago
Grape
@ GeoLaureate8: Though I agree that what you describe is murder, it was not considered murder by the Bible. My point was that Christians still commit evil acts even if they are forbidden by religious doctrine.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
@Itsallovernow

"God sanctioned murder on the basis of justice"

Murdering babies and animals is justified?

"something that our own legislation has sanctioned"

So. I don't agree with it. Federal law means nothing to me.

"thusly following (like it or not) the ideals of Christianity. Christiany was an early practice that, though not a thecracy, held great importanc in the US's history. Justice was derived from the teachings of Jesus and helped form our judical system."

No. Just no. This is so far from the truth, it hurts to read that.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law" - Thomas Jefferson

"The Bible is such a book of lies and contradictions there is no knowing which part to believe or whether any..." - Thomas Paine

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..." - John Adams

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." - Benjamin Franklin

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - James Madison

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson
Posted by Itsallovernow 7 years ago
Itsallovernow
"Murder is not allowed in Christianity but Christians commit murder." - Con

God sanctioned murder on the basis of justice, something that our own legislation has sanctioned, thusly following (like it or not) the ideals of Christianity. Christiany was an early practice that, though not a thecracy, held great importanc in the US's history. Justice was derived from the teachings of Jesus and helped form our judical system.

If I were on the other side, I would bring up the Salem Witch Trials.

GL
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
"Murder is not allowed in Christianity but Christians commit murder." - Con

What?!

"Now go and smite Amalek, and UTTERLY DESTROY all that they have, and spare them not; but SLAY both man and WOMAN , INFANT and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a$." - (I Samuel 15:2-3)
Posted by DebateStorm 7 years ago
DebateStorm
??? there's no 10 minute time limit
Posted by Sniperjake1994 7 years ago
Sniperjake1994
I wish I can take this without the 10 min time limit.
Posted by Sniperjake1994 7 years ago
Sniperjake1994
more explanations plz. If this regards that religion, as in Islam or Christianity, benefits modern society then I'll accept.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
DebateStormGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
DebateStormGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Kenostic 7 years ago
Kenostic
DebateStormGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Grape 7 years ago
Grape
DebateStormGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07